Replies

I also believe it is clear that the founders felt that "armed" meant the individual citizens having ready access to and ownership of the same individual arms that their enemy's soldiers had access to...but that is my opinion.

I agree 100% except for the fundamental unalienable right part, which in my opinion would allow everyone from known criminals, to insane people and 15 year old children to own weapons. I personally think, and this is only my opinion, that a shopping mall full of 15 year old kids with Czech 75's stuffed in their waistband down around their knees is not likely to remain a very polite place.

I'm not trying to be semantic here either. A 'fundamental unalienable right' is very specific and implies everyone. I'll repeat that I am in favor of carry laws. I am highly in favor of the 2nd amendment and the right to own arms. I am not in favor the restrictions put forth by the anti-gun lobby, but at the same time I'm not in favor of the drunk down the street owning a stinger missile. On the other hand if a million man Muslim army was marching through my state I'd probably change my tune about arming crazy people and my tipsy neighbor.

What an odd posting style you have. Out of one side of your face, you support firearms ownership. Then you say things that are completely devoid of anything resembling rational thought in regards to the notion that self defense, and the tools in question, are an "unalienable" Right as the Founders stated over and over again.

My Father started teaching me the shooting skills at age 7. Was given my first .22 at 12. My first bow at 13. My first pistol, a .357 magnum, at 16. Far from being a kid shooting up a mall, my criminal history is ONE speeding ticket (22 years worth of driving, no accidents). No, I am not exemplary or unusual in this respect. This is the NORM.

As for a drunk owning a Stinger missle. Again, you show a complete lack of thought. Any idea how much a Stinger costs? Most of the drunk I've been aware of can't afford to pay their rent much less the ten's of thousands required to buy things like Stingers.

Right now, I'm more worried about the APD SWAT morons than I am anything my neighbor may own.

The Second Amendment precludes the necessaity of gun control laws. The only laws that could be deemed Constitutional are those that would instill severe punishments for actual harm done with arms during the commission of an actual crime. The mere possession, or carrying, or arms should never... EVER... be a crime.

I believe it is an unalienable right...the right to self defense. My feeling is that the founders understood that the right extended to adults. A parent had the right to extend that privelege to their children by way of instruction and practise...but until that child becomes responsible for themselves it reamins a privelege.

I also believe it is clear that as long as someone is incarcerated and has not paid their debt to society for a crime, then they clearly are not armed. If they have paid that debt to the point of being allowed to be free...then with that freedom should come the ability to keep and bear amrs...I believe such a right is indispensable to freedom. If it is not felt that they are capable of exercising that right, then I submit they have not paid their debt and should not be at liberty (free) amongst the rest of us.